Two Of The West Memphis 3 To Be Freed

_ wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

I also already posted that in Jesse's first confession he admitted to lying to police to get them "off track"
That is also supported by testimony. So that does explain why his 1st confession contained so many glaring errors.

Do you not understand how you are arguing against your own position with this?? Let's follow your logic here: You're saying Jessie's confession must be true because (1) He's actually reasonably intelligent, despite claims to the contrary, and (2) he said he lied to the police about minor details in his confession to throw them off track in their investigation.

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever to try to throw the police off track in their investigation when you are fully confessing to a crime!

Again why don't you actually read his confessions... All of them.
He has multiple confessions, even after conviction.

Blockhead wrote:

_ wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

I also already posted that in Jesse's first confession he admitted to lying to police to get them "off track"
That is also supported by testimony. So that does explain why his 1st confession contained so many glaring errors.

Do you not understand how you are arguing against your own position with this?? Let's follow your logic here: You're saying Jessie's confession must be true because (1) He's actually reasonably intelligent, despite claims to the contrary, and (2) he said he lied to the police about minor details in his confession to throw them off track in their investigation.

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever to try to throw the police off track in their investigation when you are fully confessing to a crime!

Again why don't you actually read his confessions... All of them.
He has multiple confessions, even after conviction.

Again - I've read the confessions. Repeatedly telling me to read something that I then repeatedly tell you I've read is not productive.

To quote the Arkansas Supreme Court on the matter of Jessie's IQ, "evidence indicated that appellant's intelligence quotient was 72 and that he read at a third-grade level."

http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/1996/cr94-848.html

Blockhead wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Or maybe it has something to do with the following?:


http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... eedom.html
'...Jessie, a high-school dropout, had been in special ed throughout school. He’d come to the police station voluntarily, and police had questioned him—with no parent or lawyer present—for close to eight hours. Only two brief sections of his account, totaling less than one hour, were recorded—and I found even those parts troubling.

Jessie stated he’d met Damien and Jason in the woods where the children’s bodies were later found. He said he’d watched as Damien and Jason beat and stabbed the boys “and started screwing them and stuff.” Ultimately, Jessie said, he had helped in the murders by holding one of the victims.

Police knew the boys were last seen alive after 5 p.m. Yet in the recordings, Jessie started out saying the killings took place “early in the morning.” Police knew the boys were in school all day. Even on the taped sections, Jessie gradually changed the time to “around noon,” then “five or six,” finally settling for: “It was starting to get dark.” The medical examiner found no evidence that any had been raped.

The local prosecutor, John Fogleman, had based three charges of capital murder on Jessie’s vague and contradictory statement. A day after making his statement, Jessie recanted it.

How many lies are you going to post... Please cite the case files as those are about the only things in this thread that are not biased. No parent? 8 hours? have you even read what I have posted in this thread. I have already debunked Jessies IQ, I show by court documents that his parents consented to the confession, and I showed there was not such 12 hour (now your downgrading) to 8 hour confession.
Get your fucking facts straight and read the case files. You look like a idiot...

Re: presence of parents: First of all, the article - which was written by one of the most recognized experts on this case - says no parent or lawyer was PRESENT during the interrogation and you called her a liar & called Byrnzie an idiot for posted this so-called lie, but then tried to refute it by saying his parent CONSENTED. Consenting to someone being interrogated & actually being present for the interrogation are entirely different things. (Are you big enough to admit that the article was telling the truth when it said there was no parent present?) Regardless, you're thinking of thewrong consent & the Supreme Court of Arkansas has clearly stated that there was no parental presence OR legitimate parental consent for his confession.

Re: length of interrogation: You pulled the same shit here. The article said he was QUESTIONED for 8 hours & you cried bullshit - then posted a document that clearly shows that, while he may have first admitted guilt 4 hours into the interrogation, the interrogation itself DID last at least 8 hours. Again, you owe Ms. Leveritt & Byrnzie an apology - and one to the rest if us, too, for misrepresenting the facts again.

Re: Jessie's IQ: Unless you are now calling the state Supreme Court liars and saying that they, too, have not read the court documents, you haven't debunked shit. THEY clearly stated that his IQ was 72. Also, AGAIN, you're suggesting that the author of the article is lying about Jessie's mental capacity - but she only mentioned that he was in special ed. Saying he had an IQ above 72 in no way debunks her assertion that he was in special ed.

Do you think you could stop screaming "LIAR!!" at everyone with whom you disagree? Because, the fact is, they're not lying. You're lying by saying they're lyng. If you want anyone to believe that you know your facts, how about acknowledging these facts?

The Waiting Trophy Man wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

As for Eddie Vedder, does anyone here really think he'd be so dumb as to support the WM3 before having studied this case in minute detail?
Like most people, he may well have first gotten interested in it after seeing 'Paradise Lost' but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have made public his support for these three boys until he was 100% convinced of their innocence.
And I'm pretty sure that he's more 'educated' on this issue than anyone on this board, after having not only studied the case, but having spent time with many of those involved, including the parents of those murdered children.

He's read everything available on the case. He was practically a member of the defense team. Plus he's given millions of his own money to fund research and dna testing. He's not stupid. I think if he had any doubt, especially after having children of his own, he would have taken himself off the case long ago. He obviously felt 100% convinced of their innocence and did everything in his power to help them.

Then why did he write in his WM3 summary (sniper/playbill June 09) that Jesse was interrogated for 12 hours.
Why did he say jesses IQ was 72? Those are lies. Why publish lies?

Blockhead wrote:

_ wrote:

Re: presence of parents: First of all, the article - which was written by one of the most recognized experts on this case - says no parent or lawyer was PRESENT during the interrogation and you called her a liar & called Byrnzie an idiot for posted this so-called lie, but then tried to refute it by saying his parent CONSENTED. Consenting to someone being interrogated & actually being present for the interrogation are entirely different things. (Are you big enough to admit that the article was telling the truth when it said there was no parent present?) Regardless, you're thinking of thewrong consent & the Supreme Court of Arkansas has clearly stated that there was no parental presence OR legitimate parental consent for his confession.

Re: length of interrogation: You pulled the same shit here. The article said he was QUESTIONED for 8 hours & you cried bullshit - then posted a document that clearly shows that, while he may have first admitted guilt 4 hours into the interrogation, the interrogation itself DID last at least 8 hours. Again, you owe Ms. Leveritt & Byrnzie an apology - and one to the rest if us, too, for misrepresenting the facts again.

Re: Jessie's IQ: Unless you are now calling the state Supreme Court liars and saying that they, too, have not read the court documents, you haven't debunked shit. THEY clearly stated that his IQ was 72. Also, AGAIN, you're suggesting that the author of the article is lying about Jessie's mental capacity - but she only mentioned that he was in special ed. Saying he had an IQ above 72 in no way debunks her assertion that he was in special ed.

Do you think you could stop screaming "LIAR!!" at everyone with whom you disagree? Because, the fact is, they're not lying. You're lying by saying they're lyng. If you want anyone to believe that you know your facts, how about acknowledging these facts?

Jesse also confessed with two of his defense lawyers present. Why do they always leave that out. Why leave out his confession after conviction?

My post was in direct response to the post I was quoting, disputing your assertion that these three points were lies. I didn't leave anything out. That was not a topic of conversation in the post to which I was responding.

Funny how you just point somewhere else instead of admitting to the points I just made. If you just run in another direction when presented with facts - with :shock: SOURCES FROM THE OFFICIAL RECORDS :shock: - how exactly are we supposed to have a legitimate conversation about this case? I agree with Byrnzie : I don't think you have any real interest in this case at all.

Length of interrogation http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmtl.html
Jesses IQ test presented in court was false and he was found to be malingering on his IQ test administered by a doctor on probation for breaking medical rules/laws, the Judge ordered that the doctor could only testify on his opinion not on expertise. Why do people continue to post that his IQ was 72 when it was found to be false?
Yes they are lying.

Oh my good God, man - now I've heard EVERYTHING! YOU ARE SAYING THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS (which actually agreed with you that they are guilty) IS LYING AND HAS LESS KNOWLEDGE OF THIS CASE THAN YOU DO??!! Next thing you know, if God himself claimed to have knowledge of the case that discredited any of your claims, you'd say that He was full of shit too! Full of yourself much there, pal?

ETA: I can't help but notice that you are now saying that official case documents - which you claim provide your argument with legitimacy - are not legitimate sources of information. That means your entire argument falls.

It's like some kind of comic strip:

"I SAY BLAH, BLAH, & BLAH - AND I'M RIGHT BECAUSE THE OFFICIAL CASE DOCUMENTS ARE THE ONLY LEGITIMATE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND THEY AGREE WITH ME!!!!!"

"But the official case documents don't agree with you."

"THE OFFICIAL CASE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT A LEGITIMATE SOURCE OF INFORMATION!!!"



I wish I knew how to draw comics. You just can't make this shit up.

_ wrote:

My post was in direct response to the post I was quoting, disputing your assertion that these three points were lies. I didn't leave anything out. That was not a topic of conversation in the post to which I was responding.

Funny how you just point somewhere else instead of admitting to the points I just made. If you just run in another direction when presented with facts - with :shock: SOURCES FROM THE OFFICIAL RECORDS :shock: - how exactly are we supposed to have a legitimate conversation about this case? I agree with Byrnzie : I don't think you have any real interest in this case at all.

Length of interrogation http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmtl.html
Jesses IQ test presented in court was false and he was found to be malingering on his IQ test administered by a doctor on probation for breaking medical rules/laws, the Judge ordered that the doctor could only testify on his opinion not on expertise. Why do people continue to post that his IQ was 72 when it was found to be false?
Yes they are lying.

Oh my good God, man - now I've heard EVERYTHING! YOU ARE SAYING THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS (which actually agreed with you that they are guilty) IS LYING AND HAS LESS KNOWLEDGE OF THIS CASE THAN YOU DO??!! Next thing you know, if God himself claimed to have knowledge of the case that discredited any of your claims, you'd say that He was full of shit too! Full of yourself much there, pal?

ETA: I can't help but notice that you are now saying that official case documents - which you claim provide your argument with legitimacy - are not legitimate sources of information. That means your entire argument falls.

I don't think you can comprehend what I am talking about when I am talking about the IQ.
When I said they were lying I was talking about that biased article that was posted.